Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 489 posts

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#131

Post by WhompingWindows »

rossdavidh wrote: post #97

So, interesting and all, but not even mentioning what is happening to coal the last few years seems like an odd omission. Coal is essentially disappearing from the world's energy mix. As big as coal was, it takes a while to go away completely, but the trend does not seem to be slowing down. By some estimates, there are a lot of cases now where it is more expensive to keep running an existing coal-fired power plant, t…

Coal is down-trending in the USA, but it still makes up 30% of the electricity in the USA. In other countries, especially China and India, coal is expected to be burned in massive quantities for the next couple of decades. Granted, they use much more efficient coal than the US does, but let's not act like coal is disappearing overnight. It's been over 30% of the mix for decades and it will continue to be so, in a global scale, for at least a decade.

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#132

Post by mxschumacher »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #127
mxschumacher wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see what you mean. A more general question about capitalism can be considered here: Who holds responsibility, consumers or producers? Both? In my view, consumers who choose to lower their demand of fossil fuels (by using the bike instead of the car and reducing their vacationing on different continents) actually make a difference. If people stop consuming, companies go out of business. Investing on the other hand i…

Consumers hold the responsibility. Their choices on where to spend money determine what kind of producers can exist. They can only make the right choices if they have the right education and data though, and that requires the government to step in.

I agree. One huge caveat is advertising.

Companies implant desire into human minds, a few implicit examples:

-"If you buy this sports car, women will find you attractive and you will have more sex"

- "Going on this beach vacation will make you happy"

- "Getting this alcoholic beverage will allow you to have fun with your friends"

It's extremely hard to avoid being influenced by ads, for me it's a moral reason to use an adblocker. I want to come with my my own desires, which are mostly not about consumption of products or services offered by for-profit enterprises.

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#133

Post by clomond »

mxschumacher wrote: post #117
torpfactory wrote: post #111

"I hope that humanity will be able to free itself from its addiction of fossil fuels (arguably it is the primary reason for violent conflict in the last 30 years and the driving force behind climate change), but my bet is that things will get worse for a lot longer before we even reach the inflection point of “peak oil”. Change must happen. Change will happen. I don’t think the oil and gas industry is anywhere near t…

I see what you mean. A more general question about capitalism can be considered here: Who holds responsibility, consumers or producers? Both? In my view, consumers who choose to lower their demand of fossil fuels (by using the bike instead of the car and reducing their vacationing on different continents) actually make a difference. If people stop consuming, companies go out of business. Investing on the other hand i…

I think this is pretty reductionist.

My alternative viewpoint is that it is really one of choice and substitutes.

For the last century, fossil fuels by in large had no generally viable substitutes. Now, substitutes are coming online to replace previously heavy fossil fuel uses (think, electric cars powered with renewable energy for getting around town or the emergence of plant based burgers to replace beef burgers -> fossil fuel related as a primary input to agriculture is fertilizer, which is sourced from natural gas. Real meat requires significantly more fertilizer for the same amount of calories).

And - is investing really a zero-sum game? What about the opportunity for primary energy production to be substituted by renewable energy sources? Is that a promising opportunity that will be financed? If that does amount to an opportunity, wouldn't it be better to invest in that then Exxon? Particularly if you use the fuller definition of investment rather than just buying public shares?

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#134

Post by cesarb »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #110
nickik wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My solution would simply be to massively focus on nuclear. Replace all existing coal plants with nuclear plants and plug them into the network. Once you have mass production of nuclear power plants, you can start using nuclear power to create liquid alcohol fuels. Start a process of changing cars to electric or alcohol based fuels, the same goes for ships and eventually planes. The process of switching to alcohol bas…

Doesn't burning ethanol still create CO2? I don't think we can maintain our current level of energy use from hydrocarbon based fuels (ethanol or otherwise) while still keeping CO2 emissions low.

With ethanol, the carbon which burns to create the CO2 came from atmospheric CO2 in the first place, during the growth of the sugar cane which was used to produce that ethanol. That is, the CO2 emissions from ethanol are not a problem because they are matched by an identical amount of CO2 capture.

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#135

Post by mxschumacher »

thedstrat wrote: post #130
mxschumacher wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see what you mean. A more general question about capitalism can be considered here: Who holds responsibility, consumers or producers? Both? In my view, consumers who choose to lower their demand of fossil fuels (by using the bike instead of the car and reducing their vacationing on different continents) actually make a difference. If people stop consuming, companies go out of business. Investing on the other hand i…

I entirely disagree. By buying and owning shares of Exxon, you’re contributing and supporting the oil and gas industry. It’s completely a choice, as opposed to driving a car which is a financial necessity to some.

By not buying the shares, you make it more attractive for somebody else to buy them. For you to not buy the shares doesn't make any difference for Exxon. You should need one detractor who's interested in money. That's why the equilibrium is not stable.

If you want to kill a business, stop buying from them.

I'm not opposed to car ownership, but office workers don't need 450hp, 2.5t street tanks to cruise around in cities.

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#136

Post by lightedman »

bilbo0s wrote: post #125
torpfactory wrote: post #111

"I hope that humanity will be able to free itself from its addiction of fossil fuels (arguably it is the primary reason for violent conflict in the last 30 years and the driving force behind climate change), but my bet is that things will get worse for a lot longer before we even reach the inflection point of “peak oil”. Change must happen. Change will happen. I don’t think the oil and gas industry is anywhere near t…

What was eye opening to me is that, if the GP is to be believed, is that people keep buying F150s? Clearly, not everyone believes in the idea of climate change. (In fact, if that factoid is correct, a plurality of automobile consumers don't? That's a "wow" moment for me.)

"What was eye opening to me is that, if the GP is to be believed, is that people keep buying F150s?"

During the recession and auto industry bailout, Ford was the only auto company to almost immediately repay their TARP funding and was also giving out loans to people. They were practically unaffected and didn't even need the TARP funding in the first place.

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#137

Post by ars »

spurgu wrote: post #58
perfunctory wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's naive to think that humans will leave any oil in the ground despite climate change I think it's worth pointing out that you and I are also humans. Whether they, humans, leave any oil in the ground or not partially depends on us. If we are worried about climate change, we humans can actually do something about it.

Are you and I in control of huge corporations?

Yes. Corporation do what their customers want. So you, as a customer, have control of them.

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#138

Post by mxschumacher »

clomond wrote: post #133
mxschumacher wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see what you mean. A more general question about capitalism can be considered here: Who holds responsibility, consumers or producers? Both? In my view, consumers who choose to lower their demand of fossil fuels (by using the bike instead of the car and reducing their vacationing on different continents) actually make a difference. If people stop consuming, companies go out of business. Investing on the other hand i…

I think this is pretty reductionist. My alternative viewpoint is that it is really one of choice and substitutes. For the last century, fossil fuels by in large had no generally viable substitutes. Now, substitutes are coming online to replace previously heavy fossil fuel uses (think, electric cars powered with renewable energy for getting around town or the emergence of plant based burgers to replace beef burgers ->…

the stock market is a secondary market, so buying the shares doesn't inject capital into the company itself.

I suppose you could make an argument that investing in the primary market gives you more power/moral responsibility.

The extremely high valuations of Beyond meat and Tesla show you that many investors are willing to shower these companies in money.

As unbelievable amounts of capital are moving into solar and wind, it becomes marginally less attractive for additional funds to be deployed into these industries.

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#139

Post by NeedMoreTea »

mxschumacher wrote: post #117
torpfactory wrote: post #111

"I hope that humanity will be able to free itself from its addiction of fossil fuels (arguably it is the primary reason for violent conflict in the last 30 years and the driving force behind climate change), but my bet is that things will get worse for a lot longer before we even reach the inflection point of “peak oil”. Change must happen. Change will happen. I don’t think the oil and gas industry is anywhere near t…

I see what you mean. A more general question about capitalism can be considered here: Who holds responsibility, consumers or producers? Both? In my view, consumers who choose to lower their demand of fossil fuels (by using the bike instead of the car and reducing their vacationing on different continents) actually make a difference. If people stop consuming, companies go out of business. Investing on the other hand i…

If enough divest from Exxon they become a penny share, Greenpeace could buy them purely to sit the reserves away from use. Ridiculous, but being bought as the share price drops low enough is not. Every time a currency drops markedly businesses there are exposed to another round of international buyouts.

Similarly regulation and impact fines and levies will come. Maybe Exxon gets bought by someone looking to asset strip or use the remaining oil to pivot them elsewhere...

Would you pick up $100 and put it in your wallet in front of a police officer?

Note on meat - American and Argentinian meat specifically - other parts of the world manage to raise livestock in a far less destructive manner.

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#140

Post by torpfactory »

mxschumacher wrote: post #135
thedstrat wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I entirely disagree. By buying and owning shares of Exxon, you’re contributing and supporting the oil and gas industry. It’s completely a choice, as opposed to driving a car which is a financial necessity to some.

By not buying the shares, you make it more attractive for somebody else to buy them. For you to not buy the shares doesn't make any difference for Exxon. You should need one detractor who's interested in money. That's why the equilibrium is not stable. If you want to kill a business, stop buying from them. I'm not opposed to car ownership, but office workers don't need 450hp, 2.5t street tanks to cruise around in cit…

Sure, but the price at which the shares are available decreases with fewer available buyers. Let’s not give oil companies the money or collateral to finance their expansion.
Post reply on HN